SecretAgentWoman:That's a pretty pathetic military base if so easily overwhelmed.

they have probably been ordered not to open fire.... maybe even if fired upon. I think Russia is actually hoping to get some casualties on their side to further justify their actions. Not sure why.... they seem to be doing just fine without that. It would have made sense during the opening moves of this play but not as much anymore.

i don't think any of the really important lines go through Crimea. (I could be wrong). But for a while now I've been thinking that Ukraine should hold both the EU and Russia hostage by threatening to blow up all those pipes. It would be a desperate, dangerous gambit... but it would make for an interesting conflict. IDK that actually blowing up the lines is a good idea... but the threat of it seems to have a lot of potential. It needs to be more of a hostage situation and not so much of a reckless of a scorch the earth deal

* It could antagonize the EU into letting Russia do what it wants... or shame them into enacting actual sanctions against Russia. (It also removes the ability of Russia to intimidate Europe with cutting off the gas, since the gas would have been cut off already).

* It could scare the Russians or provoke them into taking more of Ukraine

* And then there's the fact that Ukraine also gets its own gas from those pipes.

sethen320:Dumb question: What if they did get into a shooting war? Would it really be WW3 or just another regional squabble? Though

dukeblue219:Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I hope some Ukrainians blow up some LNG pipelines and refineries as they pull out.

The pipelines that lead to Ukraine? Great strategy.

As I said in a previous thread, that could be the next phase by Russia. Stage a small attack on the pipeline by special forces leaving behind incriminating evidence of Ukraine (that can be easily fixed so as not to disrupt the sales too much) blaming Ukrainian forces/rebels. In order to secure the pipeline and protect a strategic asset both for Russia and the rest of Europe, the Russians move into neighboring territory to protect the pipeline. It just so happens that this territory is also Pro Russian and can be incorporated into a greater Crimea/Eastern Ukraine after a similar voting process we saw in Crimea directing Russia to annex them..

Just like Texas did from Mexico.Just like the US did from England.Just like the South did from the North.

I don't see much difference. Might makes right. In none of these cases did the entire population agree. In none of these cases were there not a complex political system with all sorts of interested parties standing to win or lose depending on the outcome. The South lost the war, so we celebrate that they were denied independence. In the other cases, freedom won out, so we celebrate that too. Whoever wins throws a party and writes the history books.

As far as Russia is concerned, it is removing unwelcome foreign troops.As far as the Ukraine is concerned, it's an invasion.

Just like the US declaration of independence was a small terrorist uprising fueled by their conspiring enemies - the French.

So Russia, for all these years, has had bases in Ukraine after losing that territory at the breakup of the USSR, but now they won't let Ukraine keep a base in Russia after Ukraine lost the territory back?

sethen320:Dumb question: What if they did get into a shooting war? Would it really be WW3 or just another regional squabble? Thoughts?

Any thoughts would be, at best, uneducated guesses. But I could fill in the blanks with metric ton of BS, derp, saber rattling and Obama bla....hold onyes, this is Bird. Fox News? Sorry, I'm busy taking a dump. I would be happy to send it to you for use as content.

The Ukrainians can't really fight back. They have a vintage force that would be wiped in few days.I'm not knocking anyone with family in Ukraine. They may be brave etc, etc... but thier 1970's forces would be no match whatsoever.

Politics is thier only hope. And they are playing politics with Russia. They will lose at that game too.

toadist:The Ukrainians can't really fight back. They have a vintage force that would be wiped in few days.I'm not knocking anyone with family in Ukraine. They may be brave etc, etc... but thier 1970's forces would be no match whatsoever.

Politics is thier only hope. And they are playing politics with Russia. They will lose at that game too.

they all know that the governments of the last 20 years stole all the money that was supposed to go to the military. It was one of the first assets they raided.

Just like Texas did from Mexico.Just like the US did from England.Just like the South did from the North.

I don't see much difference. Might makes right. In none of these cases did the entire population agree. In none of these cases were there not a complex political system with all sorts of interested parties standing to win or lose depending on the outcome. The South lost the war, so we celebrate that they were denied independence. In the other cases, freedom won out, so we celebrate that too. Whoever wins throws a party and writes the history books.

As far as Russia is concerned, it is removing unwelcome foreign troops.As far as the Ukraine is concerned, it's an invasion.

Just like the US declaration of independence was a small terrorist uprising fueled by their conspiring enemies - the French.

I believe all people have right to self determination. Including Crimea.

However this wasn't a fair referendum of public opinion. There were armed Russian soldiers at the booths.

42% of population are ethnicities highly opposed to Russia.

Within the 58% Russian ethnic group a large number of the younger generations are pro Ukraine.

There is no way 97% want to join Russia. We don't even know that 50% do. Its probably pretty close 50:50 which way a fair referendum would go.

This isn't Crimea electing to join Russia. It is a group of people in Crimea AND Russia military saying Crimea should join Russia. This may or may not reflect the will of the people.

Just like Texas did from Mexico.Just like the US did from England.Just like the South did from the North.

I don't see much difference. Might makes right. In none of these cases did the entire population agree. In none of these cases were there not a complex political system with all sorts of interested parties standing to win or lose depending on the outcome. The South lost the war, so we celebrate that they were denied independence. In the other cases, freedom won out, so we celebrate that too. Whoever wins throws a party and writes the history books.

As far as Russia is concerned, it is removing unwelcome foreign troops.As far as the Ukraine is concerned, it's an invasion.

Just like the US declaration of independence was a small terrorist uprising fueled by their conspiring enemies - the French.

That is all true, unfortunately we also promised Ukraine that we would protect them from Russia when they gave up their nukes. We aren't..

It feels like junior high. The big bully Russia is taking Ukraine's lunch money. We're all standing around watching scrawny little Ukraine lose something and knowing they can't do anything to prevent it. Some of us speak up and say something to the bully, but not so much that we actually piss him off, because even though we could totally take him we might get our shirt dirty. Meanwhile a lot of people are starting to crowd around yelling "fight, fight!", and there's not a single teacher anywhere to be found.

sethen320:Dumb question: What if they did get into a shooting war? Would it really be WW3 or just another regional squabble? Thoughts?

As others have said possible, but unlikely. IF Ukraine and Russia mix it up, the Ukranian army will get curbstomped. They will do damage, don't get me wrong, but they have no chance and they know it. Which is why they are trying not to shoot during these incidents.

The rest of the world will condone it and make it hurt Russia economically, but nobody is going to send troops in. Russia will most likely take the eastern half and have a puppet in the western part so as to provide a buffer between it and NATO.

Putin is gambling that the west won't risk a potential war with him over a piece of land that used to be a part of the USSR, and he's right. As long as they stay in Crimea I believe the worlds reaction will be mild. The US wants hard hitting sanctions, but Europe doesn't so as long as Putin stays off the mainland it will be pretty mild. If Russia moves to the mainland then I personally suspect the EU will change it's mind.

sethen320:Dumb question: What if they did get into a shooting war? Would it really be WW3 or just another regional squabble? Thoughts?

squabble. However, a shooting a war there with the right public support might get them US and EU support via material and currency. Though it would probably be done quietly. We'd obviously still trade with Russia though, but our only winnable strategy would be to make it a repeat of the Russian occupation of Afghanistan or our Vietnam. Unfortunately the people of Ukraine have yet to show us the resolve it would take for us to prop up a bloody multi decade insurgency that would claim far too many of their people and frankly and sadly it comes down to money right now, trade with russia is more important that trade with ukraine.

The great hope for the 21st century was that we'd reach a level of inter-connectivity where war would seem silly because everyone was your trade partner. Unfortunately, especially when economic systems are fragile like they still are, you can muscle your way to territory and wars as long as those in the world forum would be financially hurt without you.

I'm certainly not onboard the nutjob neo-con ideology but in a lot of ways they were accurate about forecasting what could be accomplished back in the nineties when they started rearing up. We could march to the antartic and no one in europe/asia would really fark with us over it.

Just like Texas did from Mexico.Just like the US did from England.Just like the South did from the North.

I don't see much difference. Might makes right. In none of these cases did the entire population agree. In none of these cases were there not a complex political system with all sorts of interested parties standing to win or lose depending on the outcome. The South lost the war, so we celebrate that they were denied independence. In the other cases, freedom won out, so we celebrate that too. Whoever wins throws a party and writes the history books.

As far as Russia is concerned, it is removing unwelcome foreign troops.As far as the Ukraine is concerned, it's an invasion.

Just like the US declaration of independence was a small terrorist uprising fueled by their conspiring enemies - the French.

That is all true, unfortunately we also promised Ukraine that we would protect them from Russia when they gave up their nukes. We aren't..

Agreed - it's like the contract you sign when you buy a used car. I mean, sure, you've got this piece of paper, but good luck enforcing it :)

abominare:sethen320: Dumb question: What if they did get into a shooting war? Would it really be WW3 or just another regional squabble? Thoughts?

squabble. However, a shooting a war there with the right public support might get them US and EU support via material and currency. Though it would probably be done quietly. We'd obviously still trade with Russia though, but our only winnable strategy would be to make it a repeat of the Russian occupation of Afghanistan or our Vietnam. Unfortunately the people of Ukraine have yet to show us the resolve it would take for us to prop up a bloody multi decade insurgency that would claim far too many of their people and frankly and sadly it comes down to money right now, trade with russia is more important that trade with ukraine.

The great hope for the 21st century was that we'd reach a level of inter-connectivity where war would seem silly because everyone was your trade partner. Unfortunately, especially when economic systems are fragile like they still are, you can muscle your way to territory and wars as long as those in the world forum would be financially hurt without you.

I'm certainly not onboard the nutjob neo-con ideology but in a lot of ways they were accurate about forecasting what could be accomplished back in the nineties when they started rearing up. We could march to the antartic and no one in europe/asia would really fark with us over it.

Everyone has had some interesting thoughts on this. I am in the "squabble" camp, but I can see the potential for things to get ugly if emotion takes over.

Just like Texas did from Mexico.Just like the US did from England.Just like the South did from the North.

I don't see much difference. Might makes right. In none of these cases did the entire population agree. In none of these cases were there not a complex political system with all sorts of interested parties standing to win or lose depending on the outcome. The South lost the war, so we celebrate that they were denied independence. In the other cases, freedom won out, so we celebrate that too. Whoever wins throws a party and writes the history books.

As far as Russia is concerned, it is removing unwelcome foreign troops.As far as the Ukraine is concerned, it's an invasion.

Just like the US declaration of independence was a small terrorist uprising fueled by their conspiring enemies - the French.

That is all true, unfortunately we also promised Ukraine that we would protect them from Russia when they gave up their nukes. We aren't..

Agreed - it's like the contract you sign when you buy a used car. I mean, sure, you've got this piece of paper, but good luck enforcing it :)

So you're telling me that the dealer sn't going to provide a free loaner?

Everything about this move seems so dumb, and the Ukranians, in not fighting back, make the Russians look more foolish.

Now Russia has to administrate, defend, police, build infrastructure, and take on all of the costs of Crimea.

Before, Russia could use everything "in kind" (lower prices on Natural Gas and Oil) as a payment for their "Lease" of access to the Black Sea Fleet of rather limited value in the first place as Turkey is a NATO member, and can close the Bosphorous any time it wants, as it now has in reaction to this activity.

Now Russia has to administrate, defend, police, build infrastructure, and take on all of the costs of Crimea.

The cost of this Crimea adventure could be as much as 3 Billion dollars US a year.http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/25015873/what-annexing-crimea-will-c os t-russias-governmentThe average income of Crimea is $5,000 US equivalent, and most of the people living there are pensioners, who used to be supported by the Ukrainian government, but will now have to supported by the Russian government.No one from Ukraine will come to Crimea for the Summer, as they used to, and so even less revenue will be coming in to support the Crimean economy. Then more subsidies will be needed.

The whole thing seems so dumb and dangerous, it is absurd that it is even happening and no visible benefits to Russia come out of the process.

I just don't understand why the Russians are considered so much better than the Ukrainian military. They couldn't deal with Chechnya the first time, they had to retreat and go in a second time. Their equipment and training is so poor that they warned the world years ago that the only way they could win a war against any half-competent military was to go nuclear-- their conventional forces fared horribly in war games.

All I've heard since then is ongoing decay of their military infrastructure as evidenced by the loss of the Kursk.

If Poland backs Ukraine militarily then I think Russia is in serious trouble. The other Baltic states will follow suit and by their own admission the Russians couldn't defeat them all. Russia would end up not just minus the Crimea but minus Kaliningrad as well. They couldn't invade Russia but they would not have to.

Sure Belarus would join in with Russia but NATO would ensure that the member states were well equipped. If the Ukraine was willing to be a battleground I don't see them losing the war.

The only real question is whether the Ukrainian military believes that hosting a war would be better than living with Putin. If they decide not to fight back, nobody else will think it is worth it either. Putin will consolidate whatever is necessary to empower the Kremlin for another century behind their nuclear curtain.

kbronsito:Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I hope some Ukrainians blow up some LNG pipelines and refineries as they pull out.

i don't think any of the really important lines go through Crimea. (I could be wrong). But for a while now I've been thinking that Ukraine should hold both the EU and Russia hostage by threatening to blow up all those pipes. It would be a desperate, dangerous gambit... but it would make for an interesting conflict. IDK that actually blowing up the lines is a good idea... but the threat of it seems to have a lot of potential. It needs to be more of a hostage situation and not so much of a reckless of a scorch the earth deal

* It could antagonize the EU into letting Russia do what it wants... or shame them into enacting actual sanctions against Russia. (It also removes the ability of Russia to intimidate Europe with cutting off the gas, since the gas would have been cut off already).

* It could scare the Russians or provoke them into taking more of Ukraine

* And then there's the fact that Ukraine also gets its own gas from those pipes.